434
Trump Might Be Too Broke for a $175 Million Bond, Too
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
434 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2056 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
But as has been established, he shouldn't have had this money in the first place. The fine is based on how much he over inflated the value of his property to get bigger loans. Had he not done so he may well have been bankrupt already.
True, the whole "victimless crime" stick is nonsense. Because if all the real estate world is lied together like this, the general population pays waaayyyy to much for their real estate and rent in addition to missing out on so much tax revenue.
It’s fraud. When money changed hands under false pretenses, harm’s been done. Somebody’s missing money that’s rightfully theirs.
I don’t know anything about this case. Didn’t know there was real estate stuff involved I thought this was the secret documents thing.
But that’s straightforward. Taking money that isn’t rightfully yours is not a victimless crime, in the way that owning pot is a victimless crime.
Agreed. This was the civil fraud trial, where trump and co where found liable of: fraudulently adjusting the evaluation of their holdings based on the audience. So for the IRS the valuation was low and for lenders it was high.
But in the case where banks are the victims I have trouble feeling for them.
But the appeal is what establishes if that is actually the case.
Think of it this way; someone gets the electric chair for a crime, but the appeal proves they were actually innocent. Can't exactly unkill them can you? So you hold off the execution until after the appeals are exhausted (corporal punishment shouldn't exist at all, for the record, I'm just using this as an easy way to illustrate my point).